William Cottingham

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of a residential property, arguing the value was zero due to severe soil instability, flooding, and structural damage caused by a neighbouring property's activities, which rendered the home uninsurable.

MPAC argued the property should be valued as a one-acre building lot for demolition and new construction.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's unimpaired building lot comparables because they failed to account for the significant costs to cure the soil and locational deficiencies.

Instead, the Board valued the property based on conservation land rates minus demolition costs, reducing the assessment from $115,000 to $56,000.

The Board declined to make an equity reduction and found it had no jurisdiction to order a refund of back taxes for unappealed prior years.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments for a residential property, arguing the value was zero due to severe soil instability, flooding, and structural damage caused by an adjacent dump, which rendered the property uninsurable.

MPAC argued the property should be valued as a building lot for demolition and new construction at $421,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's valuation because it failed to account for the significant costs to cure the soil deficiencies and the adverse locational characteristics.

The Board determined the best indication of value was as conservation land, less demolition costs, reducing the assessment to $56,500.

The Board found no jurisdiction to order repayment of back taxes.